On 01/12/11 20:04, Eike Rathke wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On Wednesday, 2011-11-30 18:45:31 +0100, Michael Stahl wrote: > >> On 30/11/11 12:10, Eike Rathke wrote: >>> Also fixed the misrepresentation of years<1000 with less than 4 digits >> >> we did that? oops. i didn't know that... > > Yup.. which made we wonder why we have two implementations for that, one > in sax and one in offxml unit converter.
actually it used to be the case that the one in sax is a copy paste of the SvXMLUnitconverter, but i cleaned that up a couple of months ago. now the remainder of SvXMLUnitconverter is stuff that cannot be moved to sax module as-is, because it depends on e.g. the tools horror, or it uses members of SvXMLUnitConverter; don't know which applies to the double/datetime conversion. >>> + // A leading ^+ is NOT invalid, ISO 8601 specifies this for explicit >>> AD/CE. >> >> for ODF the normative reference is W3C XMLSchema, and its lexical >> representation does not allow +YYYY: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#date > > oops, indeed.. the joy of standards.. > >> but i don't object to adding that as an extension to the import, though >> it makes it more difficult to detect if somebody breaks the export by >> adding a '+' :) > > I don't insist on keeping the ^+ thing in, maybe it's better to remove > that part and check for W3C compliance. I'm unbiased there. hmm... even ODF 1.0 referred to XMLSchema; i've taken a quick look at the OOoXML format: http://xml.openoffice.org/xml_specification.pdf but that doesn't seem to mention where the datatypes are from... perhaps we don't import anything with ISO8601 dates? (i'm assuming that OOXML has its own date format re-invented from scratch, like everything else and with special support for 1900-02-29 :) _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
